**Because Satan.**Rashi is answering the question: Why are both the words “statute” and “Torah” written [for surely one of them would suffice]? Rashi is not asking why either term is used altogether, for in many instances it is written in the Torah [only] “statute,” for example, “This is the statute of the Pesach offering” (Shemos 12:43) and “If you follow my statutes” (Vayikra 26:3). Also “Torah” appears in, “This is the Torah for the burnt-offering, the meal offering, the sin-offering” (Ibid., 7:37) and, “This is the Torah for the sin-offering” (Vayikra 6:2). But here it is written, “This is the statute of the Torah” so why are both [terms] necessary? Furthermore, “statute” is juxtaposed to “Torah” implying that one term defines the other. It is as if Scripture said that the Torah of the [red] cow is a statute. And it is not similar to, “My statutes and My Torah” (Bereishis 26:5) for there “statutes” is an independent term, not modifying [the word] “Torah.” Now, even though the entire Torah is the King’s edict [and we cannot know the reasons for the mitzvot], nonetheless here it serves to notify that there is no reason at all [for this commandment], rather it is an [absolute] edict and it is worthy of acceptance by Yisroel without any known reason for it. This is what Rashi explains [when he says], “Because Satan, etc.” You might [challenge this and] note that in the episode dealing with Midyan’s utensils it is [also] written, “This is the statute of the Torah” (Bamidbar 31:21). The answer is that there too it is referring to the ashes of the [red] cow for it is written, “However, it must be purified with sprinkling water” (Ibid. v. 23). According to the Midrash (see Rashi there) that the verse, “However, it must be purified with sprinkling water” refers to immersion, for the Torah requires the immersion of metal utensils to purify them from the forbidden [foods absorbed within], one must say that the [act of] immersion itself is among those [statutes] that have no reason. [For one may wonder] why one thousand seah of non-mikvah water cannot accomplish [i.e., purify] what forty seah of mikvah water accomplishes. Re”m

“What is this commandment? What is the reason for it?” You might ask: Why does Rashi seemingly repeat [the same idea] “What is this commandment? What is the reason for it?” Also, why do the nations taunt Israel regarding this commandment more than with other commandments? There are many commandments that seemingly have no reason, such as [the prohibition of] mixing different seeds, or other such similar commandments. And furthermore, why do Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel particularly regarding this commandment? It seems to me that there are three categories or commandments. First, there are commandments dealing with proper behavior such as prohibitions against theft, murder, and the like, [necessary] for the preservation of the world. Then there is a [second] category of commandments whose purpose is to remove and annul evil spirits and accusations. [These commandments] are the [blasting of the] shofar and [eating] matzos. And being that these commandments have a reason, the nations of the world do not taunt Israel regarding them because the commandments have a reason, in that they serve to remember a miracle. But Satan, which is the evil spirit, seeks to nullify the [reason by saying] "Why can the commandment only be fulfilled by blowing a shofar [i.e., ram’s horn] or only by eating matza and burning the chometz, etc.?" And a third category is commandments whose reason is not revealed, yet the nations of the world do not taunt Israel, such as lulav, tzitzis, or forbidden food. However, this commandment is not related to any miracle, and it has the [power of] removing of impurity. And also it has similarities to witchcraft in its preparation and burning. Therefore Satan, along with the nations of the world, taunts [Israel] by saying, “What is this commandment which is similar to witchcraft? And also, what reason is there for this Commandment? For it is self-contradictory: The ashes of the [red] cow purify the impure, yet it causes the one who carries the ashes to become impure! And furthermore what reason is there for it to purify the impure?” R. Yaakov Taryesh

It will always be called. Rashi is answering why Scripture writes אליך? For אליך ("to you") implies that Moshe is to be involved with the [red] cow, and below it is written, “Give it to Elozor [the kohein]” (v. 3). However, when it is written, “To take to you pure olive oil” (Vayikra 24:2), and Scripture does not clarify who should be involved with it, one might say that Moshe was to be involved, and therefore it is written, “To take to you pure olive oil.”

The cow which Moshe prepared in the wilderness. Because when Moshe prepared this [red] cow in the wilderness, they left over some [ashes] for [future] Kohanim Gedolim for the Mount of Olives and for other cows that will be sanctified from these ashes, as Rashi explains below (v. 9). That is to say that all [future] cows would need to mix in [ashes] from Moshe’s cow and that is how they became sanctified. Otherwise, it would be disqualified as being ashes of the [red] cow. That is why they are all referred to as Moshe’s.

It must be perfectly red. Meaning, why is it written “perfect”? For you cannot say that it means without a blemish for it is specifically stated, “Without a blemish.”

Two black hairs, it was disqualified. You might ask: Perhaps even one hair [would disqualify it]? The answer is that had Scripture not written “perfect” but only “red,” I would know that it has to be entirely red, and that even if it had only one black hair it would be disqualified. Now that Scripture writes “perfect” it is to teach that it must be completely red, implying that were it to have even only one black hair it is disqualified. Thus we have a situation of an exclusion following an exclusion, and in such a situation we derive an inclusion, that one black hair does not disqualify, but two back hairs disqualify. However, Re”m explains that [the law that] two hairs [disqualify] is a law [given] to Moshe at Sinai.

**The mitzvah was performed by the assistant [Kohein Gadol].*Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture not write “Give it to the kohein”? Therefore it must be that the commandment is that it must be done by the assistant, meaning the assistant to the Kohein Gadol, i.e., Elozor. He is referred to as “assistant” because if the Kohein Gadol became defiled, this kohein would take his place and do the service. And when Rashi explains “The commandment was performed by the assistant,” that is to say, only pertaining to this cow it is a requirement for the assistant perform it, but regarding other cows there are those of the opinion that only the Kohein Gadol may perform this service (Masches Yoma 42b) as Rashi shortly explains (v. 9). Therefore it is written, “Giveit*” meaning to say, “it” you give to Elozor, the assistant, but as for the others, they are to be prepared by Kohanim Gedolim.

Outside the three camps. We learn from the term “outside the camp” that is written here and compare it to the term “outside the camp” (Vayikra 13:46) that is written in the section dealing with metzora. There, perforce, it is outside the three camps, for it is written, “He shall dwell alone, [his dwelling] shall be beyond the encampment,” (Ibid.), meaning he dwells alone, that no other defiled person dwells with him. See there and in Parshas Vayikra.

The commoner slaughters, etc. [The proof is] for it is written, “In his presence.” Scripture should have written, “And someone shall slaughter it,” why add the term, “In his presence”? Perforce someone else slaughters, and since Scripture does not specify who the slaughterer is, it implies that even a commoner may slaughter.

He stands east of Jerusalem, etc. Rashi wants to answer [the following question]: Scripture writes that he must slaughter the cow outside the three camps, as previously explained (v. 3), and this verse that “Elozor [the kohein shall take] which implies that he sprinkles outside the three camps, so how can it be “directly facing the Tent of Meeting”? Rashi answers that it is not meant to be interpreted literally, that he was standing in front of the Tent of Meeting but rather he stood at a distance.

Except for the zav. Even one who has become defiled by a corpse is permitted into the camp of the Levites, and this is derived by an a fortiori [proof] from the fact that a corpse is permitted into the camp of the Levites. For Yoseif’s bones were with Moshe, and Moshe resided in the camp of the Levites because he was a Levy, so certainly one whose impurity resulted from the [red] cow is allowed into the camp of the Levites. If so, that which is written afterward, “And afterwards he may come into the camp” refers to the camp of the Shechinah.

Rearrange. [Rashi is answering the following] difficulty: The verse implies that after he washes his garments he may enter the camp of the Shichinah, but [this cannot be, for] he is still in a state of impurity until the evening. Is it possible for one to be permitted to enter the camp of the Shichinahwhen he is still in a state of impurity? He is not even allowed to eat terumah until nightfall! So certainly he is not permitted to enter the camp of the Shechinah until nightfall. Therefore the verse must be rearranged, etc.

[He divided it] into three parts. As we learned in the third chapter of Parah (Mishnah 11), and Tosafos explains “three parts” as does Rashi. Re”m writes: It seems to me that the division into three parts was by tradition. For although the verse first states "A ritually pure man shall gather, etc." (v. 9), it repeats and says "It shall remain [a keepsake]" for the community of Bnei Yisroel (ibid.) to let us know what shall be done with it by putting it down in a clean place. The third verse that states, "It shall be for Bnei Yisroel and for the proselyte who lives among them," etc. (v. 10) is to let us know that this law shall always be carried out according to this order.

The word denotes cleansing. It does not have the usual meaning “sin-offering” because for what [sin] was it an atonement!

In its halachic sense, etc., and thus prohibited from personal benefit. You might ask: But were they not purifying with it? The answer is that anything which was in the חיל [an area in the Beis Hamikdosh] was prohibited from personal benefit. Others explain that it is similar to the atonement brought about by the sin-offering which is also not considered a personal benefit.

With the ashes of the cow. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have stated "with it" in the feminine form, given that it refers to the cow. Therefore, he explains “with the ashes” meaning that [בו] refers to the אפר (ashes) which is a masculine noun.

This excludes that of an animal. Meaning that once it is written “a corpse” it is obvious that it is “a soul”! Rashi answers that this is an explanation of the word “corpse,” meaning that the verse says “whoever touches a corpse” and [then explains] which type – “the corpse of a human soul…” [One might ask:] Above it is also written, “The corpse of any human soul” (v. 11)! The answer is that above it is written במת לכל נפש (lit. "The corpse to any [human] soul") and this is the equivalent of writing במת של כל נפש האדם ("The corpse of any human soul"). There the meaning of the lamed is like the lamed in Parshas Vayishlach (Bereishis 32:18-19): למי אתה (lit. "To whom are you?") meaning, “Of whom are you?” Also like the lamed in [the verse following] לעבדך ליעקב (lit. "To your servant, to Yaakov") meaning “Of your servant, of Yaakov.” But here the word מת ("corpse") and the word נפש ("soul") are both prefixed by a beis, thus it appears that the phrase “whoever touches” refers to both, [implying that they are independent of each other], as in the manner of a verb in a construct with a subsequent beis. Therefore, Rashi says that even so, the phrase “whoever touches” refers only to the word מת (corpse) and consequently he comments that “soul” is an explanation of the word “corpse.”

Refers to a quarter of blood. Which emanates from a corpse. [This teaches] that one who touched the blood would be rendered impure for seven days, requiring sprinkling on the third and seventh days. Accordingly, the meaning of the beis would imply [that the phrase “whoever touches” refers to the words “corpse” and “soul” independently]. This is why Rashi brings the second interpretation. However, according to the second interpretation there is a difficulty that the verse should have stated “or a soul…” given that “soul” is not an explanation of the word “corpse.” Therefore, Rashi also brings the first interpretation.

If he enters the [Mishkon] courtyard. The verse implies that when he is impure he defiles the Mishkon of Hashem, but why would the Mishkon be defiled just because he was impure. Rashi answers that it refers to a case where he was impure and then entered the courtyard before having been sprinkled upon. You might ask: Rashi should have explained, “If he enters the Mishkon…” [and not, “If he enters the courtyard.]” The answer is that if so, this would have implied that it was specifically now when he was impure that he was forbidden to enter, but that when he was pure it would be permitted. But surely a non-kohein is forbidden to approach the Mishkon, even when he is pure. Regarding Rashi’s explanation that this is even after ritual immersion, we need not ask that perhaps it is specifically only when he does not immerse that there is a prohibition for him to enter the courtyard. For Rashi himself explains the term, “His impurity remains,” by saying that it implies that he had somewhat purified himself, however part of his impurity still remained. This was because he did not have the sprinklings on the third and seventh days. If so, this implies that even if he had already immersed he would be forbidden from entering. Alternatively, it is written, “Because the sprinkling water was not sprinkled on him…” Learn from there that it refers to one who had immersed, because if he had not immersed the verse should have said, “He did not immerse in water and [the sprinkling water] was not sprinkled on him.” Rather, one must say that it even refers to a case where he did immerse.

While the corpse is inside. Rashi negates the following: Do not say the tent would always render one impure, even after the corpse was removed. Logically [this is not so] since there is nothing there to render one impure, for surely one is not touching or carrying any impure object. It is understandable when the corpse is in the tent, then we regard it as if the tent is filled with impurity. For since the impurity cannot be contained it spreads out and rise up, permeating the tent. However, it is [only] when it is not contained, that impurity permeates the tent, making one who enters the tent as if he had touched the impurity itself.

An earthen utensil … but from its inside. For we find in Parshas Shemini (Vayikra 11:33) that an earthen utensil does not render articles impure from its outside, only by means of its airspace. “Thus [if its seal]…”

The word denotes attachment. You might ask: Previously in Parshas Vayetzei (Bereishis 30:8) regarding נפתולי אלהים נפתלתי ["I have been joined in Godly bonds"] Rashi comments: “Menachem ben Saruk explains this in his work in the sense of צמיד פתיל ["a cover fastened"] meaning, “I have become attached with attachments from the Omnipresent…” However I explain it in the sense of “stubborn and twisted” (Devarim 32:5)…” It would therefore be difficult to say that here Rashi explains [פתיל] like Menachem ben Saruk, given that he disagrees with him. The explanation is that above when Rashi says “I explain it in the sense of ‘stubborn and twisted’…” he is referring to the words נפתולי אלהים; however the last word נפתלתי is in the sense of צמיד פתיל ["a fastened cover"]. Therefore, here he also explains נפתלתי as meaning “I have been joined to my sister.” Nonetheless this appears to be a forced explanation, given that this is not the plain understanding of Rashi. The matter requires further investigation; see Gur Aryeh who comments at length.

The gollel and dofek. Which are normally found in the open field. A gollel is the board that is placed over a casket as a cover, while those that form the walls are called dofek (Rashi to Sanhedrin Perek Nigmar Hadin 47b). There are those who explain (Tosafos there) that the gollel is the headstone, as it is written וגללו את האבן ["and roll the stone"] (Bereishis 29:3). And dofek is [understood] like the first explanation.

This completes the purification. Rashi is answering the question: Is it specifically on the seventh day that he purifies him, but after the seventh day he would not be able to purify him? On the contrary there is a kal vachomer [a fortiori argument] that he may do so. Rashi explains the verse only comes to teach that the completion of the purification is on the seventh day, to exclude less than seven days. It is as if it stated, “On the day his purification is completed.”

Why was Mishkon stated? Meaning: If the Torah said that one is forbidden to enter the Mikdash while impure, [we would derive using a] kal vachomer [a fortioriderivation] that [it is also forbidden to enter] the Mishkon (v. 13) which was anointed with the anointing oil [while impure]. The answer is that if it had said "Mishkon" but not "Mikdash", I would have said that one was liable for the Mishkon because it was anointed with the anointing oil, which is not the case for the Mikdash which was not anointed with the anointing oil [and] therefore he is not liable. Conversely, if it had said "Mikdash" I would have said that this law applies [only] for the Mikdash whose sanctity is eternal, which is not the case for the Mishkon whose sanctity was only temporary. Thus the verse informs us [that this is not so].

That the sprinkler is actually pure. Since it is written “the pure person shall sprinkle on the unclean person” (v. 19), but it is obvious that he was pure, for if he was impure then he would make the water impure [through contact with it]. Rather it was to teach that even though he sprinkled, he remains pure.

That one who carries the purifying water becomes [extremely] impure … unlike one who touches. Meaning: One should not question the explanation that “One who sprinkles…” comes to teach that one who carries it becomes impure if he carries an amount sufficient for sprinkling. [For one might say:] Surely afterwards it is written that “One who touches the sprinkling water shall remain impure until the evening,” which also implies that if there is an amount sufficient for sprinkling that he becomes impure. But if “One who sprinkles” refers to one who carries, why does Scripture write “and one who touches.” If one who carries becomes impure, then surely the one who touches [would also become impure]. Rashi explains that the verse, “One who sprinkles…” comes to teach that one who carried the purifying water has to immerse his clothes, which is not the case for one who merely touches it. There he does not need to immerse his clothes. Though Rashi says “To contaminate the garments he wears,” this is also the case for any clothing or utensils that an impure person touches when he is in contact with the source of impurity. The reason why Rashi refers to garments that he wears [because the garments referred to here] would ordinarily be worn at the time of his contact with the impurity. When Rashi writes that he becomes extremely impure, this refers to one who does not carry the water in order to sprinkle it and before the commandment [of sprinkling] was performed. However, if it was carried in order to sprinkle or after the commandment [of sprinkling] had been performed, one who touched or carried the water would be pure. Re’m.

But his garments do not require ritual washing. Meaning that because “one who sprinkles” refers to the one who carried the water, it should have said “one who touches” along with “one who sprinkles” [in the first part of the verse]. For it is the manner of Scripture to include both touching and carrying together, but here they are mentioned separately. Rather it is to teach that “[his garments] do not…”

Which this person who became impure through contact with a corpse. Meaning that there is a question as to which impure person the verse refers. Apparently the word הטמא ["the impure person"] refers to the person who was just mentioned, the one who touched the purifying waters. But this cannot be, because one who touches the purifying waters is impure only until the evening, thus he cannot contaminate another person. Rashi therefore answers that “the impure person” here refers to one who became impure through contact with a corpse and he “shall be ritually impure,” meaning that if he touches utensils then they will become impure. Rashi adds the word בו ["him"] to indicate what he touched. He also explains that the word בו refers to one who became impure through contact with a corpse and not to one who touched a person who became impure through contact with a corpse.

The one defiled by the corpse. Meaning: Someone who touched another person who had become impure through contact with a corpse would become impure until the evening. Rashi asks: It is understandable that he could make utensils impure, because one who becomes impure through contact with a corpse has the status of a primary impurity and utensils can become impure through touching a primary impurity. However why would someone who touched this impure person become impure? Surely a person cannot become impure through touching a primary impurity, only from an אב הטומאה ["father of impurity"]? Rashi answers that “from here we learn…”

Let the cow come and atone… You might ask: Surely a prosecutor cannot become a defender, for we similarly apply [this rule] concerning the golden vestments of the Kohein Gadol (Vayikra 16:4). He is forbidden to wear golden vestments when performing the service inside Holy of Holies because of the sin that was committed through gold. Here too surely the sin was done through the calf. The answer is that it was specifically regarding the service inside the Holy of Holies that it is forbidden because [we apply the principle that] a prosecutor cannot become a defender. For we see that [the Kohein Gadol] did serve wearing the golden vestments outside the Holy of Holies. Here too with the red cow, which was offered outside, it would not be fitting to say [the principle] that a prosecutor cannot become a defender. You might ask: Rashi below explains that the service of the red cow was not done by Aharon because [of the principle that] a prosecutor cannot become a defender! The answer is that Aharon is different, because the sin occurred through his [own] hand. However regarding the red cow, it is not this cow that was involved in the sin of the golden calf, only an animal of the same species. You might ask: In Parshas Shemini (Vayikra 9:2) it writes concerning Aharon, “Take a calf for yourself” and Rashi explains, "To show that Hashem had forgiven him for the incident with the golden calf.” [Surely there we see that] there was no difference between outside or inside the Holy of Holies. The answer is that there it refers to a case where he was atoning for himself, thus it was not appropriate to apply [the principle] that a prosecutor cannot become a defender, even though this was atoning for him regarding the sin of the golden calf. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: What is the connection between the red cow, which purifies after becoming impure through contact with a corpse, and atonement for the incident with the golden calf? The answer is that if they had not sinned with the golden calf they would have lived forever, as is stated in the first chapter of [Tractate] Avodah Zarah (5a): Rabbi Yosi says: Yisroel only received the Torah in order that the Angel of Death would not rule over them, as it is written, “So that it will be good for you.” However, when they sinned, Hashem said, “Rather, you shall die like man.” Consequently we see that death itself is an inherent consequence of the golden calf, and thus Hashem said “Let the child’s mother [the cow, mother of the calf] come and wipe away [the filth].” This is why it is used for purification.

Just as the calf defiled… Because [the transgression of] the calf was idolatry and idolatry makes one impure like one who becomes impure through contact with a corpse, as is written in Tehillim (106:28) “They attached themselves to Baal Peor and ate the sacrifices of the dead.”